Dear Erik and Terry,
I'd just like to draw what I take to be an important distinction in 
this thread, and then agree with both of you. If we make a distinction 
between the object and technique (or strategy or method) of inquiry, 
then I would strongly endorse both Erik's claim that individual design 
processes are a worthy object of study, and also Terry's claim that 
introspection on our own activity is not a perennially reliable source 
of generating research quality knowledge.
[On this score, I think it is misleading to cast Schön as an 
introspectionist (something neither of you have done, just clarifying a 
point). In contrast, his studies were observational, evidentiary and 
carefully reasoned. His notions of reflection in and on action should 
not be confused with introspection—he was searching for ways to 
describe others' observable activity, and to this end he uses the term 
'reflection' in a rather unorthodox sense.]
The centrality of intersubjectivity to the validity of empirical modes 
of inquiry is, I feel, indisputable. We require the ability to publicly 
share our objects of inquiry with peers in order to ensure the 
integrity of our work. This is as possible with individual design 
processes as it is with larger scale organisational ones.
Kind regards,
Ben

Ben Matthews
Assistant Professor, PhD
Mads Clausen Institute
University of Southern Denmark
[log in to unmask]
Ph +45 6550 1675

On 4 May 2006, at 09:02, Erik Stolterman wrote:

> Dear Kevin and Terry
>
> Just a small comment. Terry's reflection about the status of design, 
> =20
> as being done in teams and in large projects, is a valid one and =20
> serves to be studied and honored in its own right. However, the =20
> individual designer is at the core of the process, we are at the end 
> =20
> of the day individuals that try to adjust, accomodate, explore, =20
> challenge, or change the way things are and are done. It is obvious =20
> that the stream of research with this focus has been highly =20
> succesful. This is why Sch=F6n and all the work in his tradition are 
> so =20=
>
> frequently referenced in the field.
>
> There is nothing that says that since the individual designer is =20
> involved in a reflective practice, that such a practice can not be =20
> studied in a valid and rigorous way.
-----
>
> 4 maj 2006 kl. 01.54 skrev Terence Love:
>
>>
>>
>> Its not obvious to me how mapping a design process gives new =20
>> knowledge. Most
>> design activity is routine. We know how to do it already. New =20
>> designs are
>> made, but that doesn't imply that there is any new knowledge developed
>> either as used in the reasoning leading up to the design, or in the 
>> =20=
>
>> design
>> process.
>>
>> As Michael French (1971) said there are almost an infinite number =20
>> of was of
>> describing design process. No models of design process are correct or
>> accurately representative of what happens inside an individual =20
>> unless it is
>> possible to map out their individual neuro-cognitive-physiological
>> processes. Self-reflection doesn't do that. This makes it difficult 
>> =20=
>
>> for me
>> to see, in research terms, how researching design processes of =20
>> individual
>> designers offers solid generalisable research findings of the sort =20
>> expected
>> of a doctoral thesis.
>>
>> Am I missing something? Thoughts?
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D
>> Dr. Terence Love
>> Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
>> Mobile: 0434975 848
>> [log in to unmask]
>